The Trump Justice Department suffered an embarrassing courtroom setback Thursday after a federal judge ripped into its handling of an investigation targeting New York Times reporters, saying the government’s legal work was so sloppy he would consider sanctions. The DOJ then abruptly withdrew its subpoenas.
The subpoenas would have forced three Times reporters to testify before a grand jury about confidential sources behind stories involving President Donald Trump’s controversial Qatari-gifted Air Force One jet.
But U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian made it clear he wasn’t impressed with the Justice Department’s work.
During a tense courtroom hearing, the judge sharply criticized government lawyers for rushing to subpoena journalists without first exhausting other investigative options, a requirement under Justice Department rules designed to protect press freedom and the First Amendment.
“Subpoenas are the last step, not the first step, but the last step,” Subramanian said, according to the Associated Press, adding that the government had turned both the law and its own regulations “on its head.”
The judge went even further, saying that if the case had been a civil matter, he would normally consider ordering the attorneys to explain why they shouldn’t face sanctions.
“When you see something like this… what I would normally do is ask the parties to show cause why sanctions should not be issued,” Subramanian said.
Faced with the judge’s withering criticism, the Justice Department withdrew the subpoenas before the court could formally rule against them.
The reversal marks the latest setback for the Trump administration’s aggressive campaign to force journalists to reveal confidential sources. In recent weeks, the Justice Department has also backed away from similar subpoenas targeting reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal in separate leak investigations.
The hearing grew even more uncomfortable for government attorneys after Justice Department lawyer Sean Buckley admitted investigators had mistakenly sought phone records belonging to one reporter’s mother and the spouses of two journalists.
“That was an error, judge, which we own,” Buckley said, blaming the mistakes on moving too quickly.
Subramanian wasn’t buying the explanation.
“These things are starting to pile up,” he responded.
The government had also tried to keep the entire court fight under seal, but the hearing proceeded in public.
The investigation centers on reporting about Trump’s new Air Force One, a jet gifted by Qatar that the administration reportedly spent roughly **$400 million** retrofitting before placing it into service.
The Times reported, citing anonymous sources, that Trump recently chose to fly on the older Air Force One after the Secret Service raised concerns that the new aircraft lacked key security features, including advanced antimissile systems. Trump publicly dismissed those reports.
The newspaper argued that the subpoenas reached far beyond those specific articles, seeking phone records dating back to Jan. 1—months before the stories were even published—raising concerns that prosecutors were casting an extraordinarily wide net to uncover reporters’ confidential sources.
David McCraw, the Times’ chief newsroom lawyer, welcomed the government’s retreat.
“We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place,” McCraw said. “We will not be deterred in the face of tactics like these.”
Before the hearing ended, Subramanian delivered one final jab after learning that one reporter had been served by an FBI agent while at home watching the family movie *The Sheep Detectives.
“I can’t think of anything more inconsistent with ‘Sheep Detective’ than an FBI agent showing up at your door,” the judge quipped, drawing laughter throughout the courtroom.
For the Justice Department, it was an unusually public rebuke—one that ended not with a courtroom victory, but with an abrupt retreat.
